Re: 1.5.6: (bound? ) missing from optargs.scm

[Marius Vollmer]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:

>    Curious, what would you do differently if redesigning?
> 
> well, i would hide SCM_MAGIC_SNARFER and require output file to be
> specified, omitting guile-snarf writing to stdout in favor of it being
> able to manage zonking the output file should the cpp fail in some way
> (model after "gcc -o").  indeed, this is what i did before the work was
> clobbered by foolish consistency w/ the mal-published past.

It was not clobbered, please look more closely at what I did.  You
keep your '-o' option, and the rest of us gets to have command line
compatibility with the snarfer from 1.4.  This compatibility comes at
very little cost, if you want to call it a cost at all: the user is
not forced to switched to a better usage of guile-snarf, he is merely
allowed to.

I also removed the deprecation mechanism in the stable branch because
it partly duplicates the mechanism that we have already.

> the macros and what not are fine, IMHO.  i'm just grousing because i
> find it unpleasant to work w/ coding cowboys (yes mvo that's you)
> who break things gratuitously and leave the pieces for others to
> clean up, all the while wondering what the big deal is all about.

Yeah, I was not being very polite by snatching the hacking of
guile-snarf away from you.  Your first reply did not sound like you
wanted to continue, tho.